Thank you for that, but are we not operating almost completely in the theoretical? The evidence before us is that the actions the police have taken and that have been disclosed have been, as you described, victimless, and we haven't had a serious challenge, constitutional or otherwise, to these provisions. We have no evidence that there have been those kinds of harms. So I'm wondering, what is the harm that we're trying to prevent? Obviously we want to prevent harms. But what's the harm we're trying to prevent and to whom? For some of these--as I mentioned, human trafficking, biker gangs, organized crime, child pornography--we know the harm from the criminal investigative side that we're trying to prevent on that end. In acting under this provision, where is the evidence that there's some wrong that we as parliamentarians have to correct?
On June 1st, 2006. See this statement in context.